Juche: Philosophy of Victory

Not sure where this goes, if you consider Juche reactionary than feel free to move it, but I certainly don't and I remember there use to be a discussion here relating to Juche. Perhaps this will provide new insights.

Juche, the official state philosophy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is very little known in the West but needs to be seriously studied by all revolutionaries here for two main reasons : 1. Of all the socialist and other anti-capitalist nations that have existed, the D.P.R.K. is the only one never to have been defeated in war or destroyed from within; unlike Marxism or Fascism, Juche has shown itself to be resiliant to attack and long-lasting. 2. Of all the USA’s enemies, the D.P.R.K. has been subject to the most propaganda ever, it can be said that the D.P.R.K. is America’s greatest enemy in the world right now, and as the Russian Eurasianist writer Andrei Ignatiev has said “The D.P.R.K. is a mirror image of America.” For those of us who seek to build a new society this country is then worthy of study indeed.

What is Juche ?

In the Korean language, Juche is a combine of two characters – Ju meaning Lord and Che meaning to be like or “to be like a God” as a definition. The Korean leader Kim Jong Il defines it as “Juche means that man is master of his own destiny.” This philosophy is opposed to both idealism and materialism for both thought-systems essentially say that man is subject to outside forces beyond his control whereas Juche says that there is nothing man cannot do if he wills it – as one Juche book puts it “a man can move a mountain even if his faith is as small as a grain of rice.” To me this system seems as it were the ultimate Faustian ideal – the pure embodiment of Nietzschean will to power. Also this idea of making a God of oneself reminds me of the “left-hand path” of Julius Evola and his idea of deification as the goal of life and especially of the warrior-man. Ignatiev says that the “man” referred to in Juche works is not the simple modern humanity of Western philosophy but rather the “superior twice born man” of esoteric Asian belief, the man who has attained self-mastery.

Characteristics of Man

Juche says that man is a superior being to animals who is innately superior and not simply an evolved higher form as the Marxists say. Man has three special characteristics which separate him and place him above animals – independence, creativity and consciousness. Independence means that man desires to control his own life and despises being enslaved or controlled by another man or by nature, creativity means that man has the capability to think outside of his own reality and visualise another one (an important concept in the field of initiation) and consciousness means that man is born with compassion and care for his fellow men – a statement which concurs which Confucianism but is opposed to Western religions which see man as somehow being evil by nature. Man is also defined as a social being under Juche, meaning that men are not meant to be loners but to be assimilated into a society. The goal then of political science is to create a form of government that brings people together while at the same time not suppressing their freedom to be themselves.

The Juche view of history

History is thus seen as a continous struggle waged by humanity to form a society that respects individual independence, each phase in history is seen as being more free than the one preceeding it, the driving forces of this struggle are ideas created by leaders, Juche hence is Hegelian and dialectical though not materialist. It is interesting that one website discussing Juche and Marxism says that while Marx derived his view of history from a combination of Hegel and Feurbach; Juche leans toward Hegel and discards Feurbach which is the exact same position Alexandr Dugin took in creating his National Bolshevism.

Juche, Socialism, Nationalism

Socialism is seen as the highest form of economic development, because it unites all the people of a society together without any impeding divisions of class while guaranteeing man all he needs in life, such as free food, housing, medical care, clothing and education as well as the rights to work and relaxation. Through these measures, under socialism man now has the time and ability to begin the next stage of his development, working on himself to overcome humanness and reach an ever higher level of existence.
In stating that man is a social being, the ext question is how does man form a society ? Juche answers that by saying that ethnicity is the building blocks of society. Nations are seen by Juche as life forms of themselves who transcend economic divisions; as Kim Jong Il said in his 2003 work On Having a Correct Understanding of Nationalism “a bourgeois Korean and a proletarian Korean are both Koreans and share common interstes against foreigners who wish to control Korea”; this view is not Marxist at all (Marx was against nationalism completely seeing it as nothing more than a bourgeois ruse) and is closer to Giovanni Gentile and the doctrines of Italian Fascism. An amusing story relates that when Kim Jong Il was 18 and studying the Communist Manifesto at university, he became incensed when he read the line “the proletarian has no motherland” and immeidately crossed it out and wrote in the margins “I am a Korean, I am socialist, I see no contradiction.” Juche defines a nation as a people who share a common language, territory and bloodline – a definition that would terrify Western leftists and perhaps comfort some national revolutionaries. As ethnicity and nation are part of man’s character, any attempt to deprive man of his ethnic-feeling is seen as depriving him of his independence; Juche even sees the primary contradiction in the world today as being between globalism/capitalism which seek to destroy unique cultures/bloodlines and socialism/nationalism which seeks to preserve the unique nature of all nations and peoples.

The Leader

While Juche acknowledges the equality of all men in terms of rights and duties to each other, it does not believe all men are equal in abilities. Juche is a meritocratic system whereby all peform the jobs they are naturally possessing of an aptitude for - exactly as in the Platonic Republic. As mentioned above, Juche sees history as being made by ideas created by leaders. The leader is seen as a person who is naturally born to rule and is somehow of a differnet essence from the mass, he loves the mass and serves the mass but he is not of them and while it is never quite said so bluntly, Juche says the masses must worship the leaders because the leader did not necessarily have to be good to them…..so every gift from the leader to the people is a blessing which must be thanked for. Leadership qualities can be passed down from father to son, Korean writings have expounded on the notion that the family of Kim Il Sung, his son and successor Kim Jong I and the heir-apparent Kim Jong Un share a common “superior bloodline.” Indeed Juche can be said to be monarchist, and an echo of the old Traditional ideas of divine kingship.

Self Reliance

As part of building an independent country, Juche sees any kind of dependence on foreign trade as leading to foreign domination, thus the D.P.R.K. pursues a strict policy of economic autarky; if Koreans can’t make something in Korea with Korean materials, they will do without it. While in a small country like Korea this leads to a much more harsh form of life, for those of us are fighters and have read Julius Evola’s praise for economic austerity in Men Among the Ruins, this system is very admirable as it is based on sacrificing material gain for a higher principle. Juche goes even further and says that the success of the revolution depends on each and every citizen of the state, thus every Korean over the age of 18 is issued a weapon and expected to fight for his country, even if the government and army is defeated the people are expected to fight to the death without any kind of command structore if worst comes to worst; self-reliance also means each individual is ultimately responsible for his future.

What this all means for us

The Koreans always stress that their ideology is meant only for their nation and people and can not and should not be exported and applied elsewhere. Hence a Juche party of America would be a non-sequitur, however there are still things I think we can learn from the Koreans : 1. We can admire their fighting spirit and willingness to die rather than give in to the Western world, 2. We can regain a sense of just how imporatant our ethnic identities are to our self-makeup, 3. We can learn how it is quite possible to be proud of our own people without being chauvinistic, imperialistic and hateful towards others, 4. We can see how it is possible to build a state that is not connected to the outside world, an economy that is not controlled by the banksters, and an educational system that teaches people values not depravity and 5. We can learn just how important strong leadership is in politics.

Source: Open Revolt

Juche, the official state philosophy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is very little known in the West but needs to be seriously studied by all revolutionaries here for two main reasons : 1. Of all the socialist and other anti-capitalist nations that have existed, the D.P.R.K. is the only one never to have been defeated in war or destroyed from within; unlike Marxism or Fascism, Juche has shown itself to be resiliant to attack and long-lasting. 2. Of all the USA’s enemies, the D.P.R.K. has been subject to the most propaganda ever, it can be said that the D.P.R.K. is America’s greatest enemy in the world right now, and as the Russian Eurasianist writer Andrei Ignatiev has said “The D.P.R.K. is a mirror image of America.” For those of us who seek to build a new society this country is then worthy of study indeed.

Fascism is not socialism. It doesn't matter how long something lasts if it's policies are wrong; that line reeks of argument from authority. Calling something a 'mirror image of America' doesn't mean socialist paradise.

What is Juche ?

In the Korean language, Juche is a combine of two characters – Ju meaning Lord and Che meaning to be like or “to be like a God” as a definition. The Korean leader Kim Jong Il defines it as “Juche means that man is master of his own destiny.” This philosophy is opposed to both idealism and materialism for both thought-systems essentially say that man is subject to outside forces beyond his control whereas Juche says that there is nothing man cannot do if he wills it – as one Juche book puts it “a man can move a mountain even if his faith is as small as a grain of rice.” To me this system seems as it were the ultimate Faustian ideal – the pure embodiment of Nietzschean will to power. Also this idea of making a God of oneself reminds me of the “left-hand path” of Julius Evola and his idea of deification as the goal of life and especially of the warrior-man. Ignatiev says that the “man” referred to in Juche works is not the simple modern humanity of Western philosophy but rather the “superior twice born man” of esoteric Asian belief, the man who has attained self-mastery.

That quote is from the Bible lol. Anyway, plaigerism aside, to ignore materialism is to not be a Marxist and I think it's clear why. The other stuff seems like the guy has a dominance fettish.

Characteristics of Man

Juche says that man is a superior being to animals who is innately superior and not simply an evolved higher form as the Marxists say. Man has three special characteristics which separate him and place him above animals – independence, creativity and consciousness. Independence means that man desires to control his own life and despises being enslaved or controlled by another man or by nature, creativity means that man has the capability to think outside of his own reality and visualise another one (an important concept in the field of initiation) and consciousness means that man is born with compassion and care for his fellow men – a statement which concurs which Confucianism but is opposed to Western religions which see man as somehow being evil by nature. Man is also defined as a social being under Juche, meaning that men are not meant to be loners but to be assimilated into a society. The goal then of political science is to create a form of government that brings people together while at the same time not suppressing their freedom to be themselves.

Animals have all those things, sorry to say. Dolphins and elephants are self-aware, compassionate for others, and can create new content from imagination. This whole paragraph is bunk and the last sentence is Idealist, the very same thing the previous paragraph said Juche wasn't.

The Juche view of history

History is thus seen as a continous struggle waged by humanity to form a society that respects individual independence, each phase in history is seen as being more free than the one preceeding it, the driving forces of this struggle are ideas created by leaders, Juche hence is Hegelian and dialectical though not materialist. It is interesting that one website discussing Juche and Marxism says that while Marx derived his view of history from a combination of Hegel and Feurbach; Juche leans toward Hegel and discards Feurbach which is the exact same position Alexandr Dugin took in creating his National Bolshevism.

This is the very Idealism that Marx criticized Proudhon for. History is not made by a series of ever increasing ideas of social order, rather the material conditions create the ideas that are pertinent to the time. The last sentence is an argument from authority and therefore bunk.

Juche, Socialism, Nationalism

Socialism is seen as the highest form of economic development, because it unites all the people of a society together without any impeding divisions of class while guaranteeing man all he needs in life, such as free food, housing, medical care, clothing and education as well as the rights to work and relaxation. Through these measures, under socialism man now has the time and ability to begin the next stage of his development, working on himself to overcome humanness and reach an ever higher level of existence.
In stating that man is a social being, the ext question is how does man form a society ? Juche answers that by saying that ethnicity is the building blocks of society. Nations are seen by Juche as life forms of themselves who transcend economic divisions; as Kim Jong Il said in his 2003 work On Having a Correct Understanding of Nationalism “a bourgeois Korean and a proletarian Korean are both Koreans and share common interstes against foreigners who wish to control Korea”; this view is not Marxist at all (Marx was against nationalism completely seeing it as nothing more than a bourgeois ruse) and is closer to Giovanni Gentile and the doctrines of Italian Fascism. An amusing story relates that when Kim Jong Il was 18 and studying the Communist Manifesto at university, he became incensed when he read the line “the proletarian has no motherland” and immeidately crossed it out and wrote in the margins “I am a Korean, I am socialist, I see no contradiction.” Juche defines a nation as a people who share a common language, territory and bloodline – a definition that would terrify Western leftists and perhaps comfort some national revolutionaries. As ethnicity and nation are part of man’s character, any attempt to deprive man of his ethnic-feeling is seen as depriving him of his independence; Juche even sees the primary contradiction in the world today as being between globalism/capitalism which seek to destroy unique cultures/bloodlines and socialism/nationalism which seeks to preserve the unique nature of all nations and peoples.

The very existence of bourgeoisie in the DPRK is proof in itself that it is not socialist by the very definition of socialism! This counteracts the very first sentence of this section as well! One's culture can change and that's what I think nationality is, not blood.

The Leader

While Juche acknowledges the equality of all men in terms of rights and duties to each other, it does not believe all men are equal in abilities. Juche is a meritocratic system whereby all peform the jobs they are naturally possessing of an aptitude for - exactly as in the Platonic Republic. As mentioned above, Juche sees history as being made by ideas created by leaders. The leader is seen as a person who is naturally born to rule and is somehow of a differnet essence from the mass, he loves the mass and serves the mass but he is not of them and while it is never quite said so bluntly, Juche says the masses must worship the leaders because the leader did not necessarily have to be good to them…..so every gift from the leader to the people is a blessing which must be thanked for. Leadership qualities can be passed down from father to son, Korean writings have expounded on the notion that the family of Kim Il Sung, his son and successor Kim Jong I and the heir-apparent Kim Jong Un share a common “superior bloodline.” Indeed Juche can be said to be monarchist, and an echo of the old Traditional ideas of divine kingship.

This section is more disgusting and reactionary than all the rest. Monarchy is authoritarian bullshit. No man is above another, ever.

Self Reliance

As part of building an independent country, Juche sees any kind of dependence on foreign trade as leading to foreign domination, thus the D.P.R.K. pursues a strict policy of economic autarky; if Koreans can’t make something in Korea with Korean materials, they will do without it. While in a small country like Korea this leads to a much more harsh form of life, for those of us are fighters and have read Julius Evola’s praise for economic austerity in Men Among the Ruins, this system is very admirable as it is based on sacrificing material gain for a higher principle. Juche goes even further and says that the success of the revolution depends on each and every citizen of the state, thus every Korean over the age of 18 is issued a weapon and expected to fight for his country, even if the government and army is defeated the people are expected to fight to the death without any kind of command structore if worst comes to worst; self-reliance also means each individual is ultimately responsible for his future.

This section contradict the section Juche, Socialism, Nationalism. So the people have both enough food and have to do without food or some other necessity?

What this all means for us

The Koreans always stress that their ideology is meant only for their nation and people and can not and should not be exported and applied elsewhere. Hence a Juche party of America would be a non-sequitur, however there are still things I think we can learn from the Koreans : 1. We can admire their fighting spirit and willingness to die rather than give in to the Western world, 2. We can regain a sense of just how imporatant our ethnic identities are to our self-makeup, 3. We can learn how it is quite possible to be proud of our own people without being chauvinistic, imperialistic and hateful towards others, 4. We can see how it is possible to build a state that is not connected to the outside world, an economy that is not controlled by the banksters, and an educational system that teaches people values not depravity and 5. We can learn just how important strong leadership is in politics.

It may not be controlled by banksters, but it is controlled by a dictator.

Source: Open Revolt

Good to see some objections and opposition; this is how we grow.

Red Aegis wrote:Fascism is not socialism. It doesn't matter how long something lasts if it's policies are wrong; that line reeks of argument from authority. Calling something a 'mirror image of America' doesn't mean socialist paradise.

The author never meant to compare the Fascism and Socialism, and I agree, the two are different. The author did say, however, that Juche was both different from Marxism AND Fascism. He wasn't saying it was necessarily right simply because it exists, but rather saying it is a nation that has resisted globalization and capitalism longer than any Marxist or Fascist nation has and that alone is a reason revolutionaries should at least study North Korea and Juche and obtain an accurate understanding of the nation and system beyond what the bourgeois media has to say.

to ignore materialism is to not be a Marxist and I think it's clear why. The other stuff seems like the guy has a dominance fettish.

The author made it clear in the above paragraph that Juche is not Marxist, yet is still revolutionary and Socialist. Juche was built off Marxist-Leninist ideology but is something different in its entirety. There is also nothing wrong with dominance. We need some dominance - dominance of worker over bourgeois and dominance of man over material conditions.

Animals have all those things, sorry to say. Dolphins and elephants are self-aware, compassionate for others, and can create new content from imagination. This whole paragraph is bunk and the last sentence is Idealist, the very same thing the previous paragraph said Juche wasn't.

It isn't Idealist, and animals while although need to be fully respected as conscious beings however one can not make the argument that they exist on the same level of consciousness, awareness, and intelligence as humans.

This is the very Idealism that Marx criticized Proudhon for. History is not made by a series of ever increasing ideas of social order, rather the material conditions create the ideas that are pertinent to the time. The last sentence is an argument from authority and therefore bunk.

I think a thread unto itself will have to be devoted to the subject of Historical Materialism, but I personally discard the Material Dialectic of history while still putting credence in other Marxist theories such as the Labor Theory of Value. I don't believe that matter and material alone has guided man's destiny up until the present date, I believe history to be a healthy mixture of both Idealist and Materialist dialectics, not just one or the other. Whether it departs from Marxist theory or not is irrelevant as it has been stated Juche =/= Marxism.

The very existence of bourgeoisie in the DPRK is proof in itself that it is not socialist by the very definition of socialism! This counteracts the very first sentence of this section as well! One's culture can change and that's what I think nationality is, not blood.

Where does the bourgeoisie exist in Korea? Is that not your goal as a socialist to assimilate all the classes of said nation, by expropriating bourgeois property and thus assimilating the bourgeoisie into the former class of proletarians?

Secondly, culture can change due to a myriad of influences, but one's bloodline and history is what connects them to other members of the nation. Their historical bloodline, the hardship and achievements their ancestors have shared in the past. It is this identity that produces the culture, and today we are witnessing Cosmopolitan-Capitalism, a rootless society with no culture or identity outside of MTV or McDonalds.

This section is more disgusting and reactionary than all the rest. Monarchy is authoritarian bullshit. No man is above another, ever.

I will ignore the rhetoric, but this conception of Monarchy is not necessarily equal to absolutism and anti-democratic. Men naturally differ, as CeltIberian's signature says "The dogma of innate human equality is no part of Communism". Indeed, then it is likewise that humans will organize themselves in hierarchical structures. That does not exclude democracy, nor even "From each according to their ability; to each according to their own need".

Furthermore, hereditary monarchy triumphs in North Korea because they are a people that has not yet broken away from that Tradition, which is admirable because we here in the west have been lacking a unique identity and tradition ever since the French Revolution.

This section contradict the section Juche, Socialism, Nationalism. So the people have both enough food and have to do without food or some other necessity?

It isn't contradictory, and I am not sure what you are asking. In the sense spoken here Autarky assumes an almost spiritual role, the North Korean people rather maintain their uniqueness, culture and traditions rather than open the gate to bourgeois exploitation and decadence simply to feed their faces. The U.S. constantly threatens to cut off any and all aid unless North Korea submits. Refer to my signature.

It may not be controlled by banksters, but it is controlled by a dictator.

Dictatorship and totalitarianism are bourgeois invented terms used in order to contrast regimes they don't like with their own regimes which they like to parade around as the most free, I implore you to not use the enemy's language. I would say the State of North Korea is wholly demonized by the western media, and it has been shown here that elections do take place on a local level.

Anyway, even if I were to buy into the "ZOMG the Kim dynasty oppresses their people so badly!", I would still say a Korean dictator is better than the dictatorship of the Western Bourgeoisie.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Good to see some objections and opposition; this is how we grow.

The author never meant to compare the Fascism and Socialism, and I agree, the two are different. The author did say, however, that Juche was both different from Marxism AND Fascism. He wasn't saying it was necessarily right simply because it exists, but rather saying it is a nation that has resisted globalization and capitalism longer than any Marxist or Fascist nation has and that alone is a reason revolutionaries should at least study North Korea and Juche and obtain an accurate understanding of the nation and system beyond what the bourgeois media has to say.

The author made it clear in the above paragraph that Juche is not Marxist, yet is still revolutionary and Socialist. Juche was built off Marxist-Leninist ideology but is something different in its entirety. There is also nothing wrong with dominance. We need some dominance - dominance of worker over bourgeois and dominance of man over material conditions.

It isn't Idealist, and animals while although need to be fully respected as conscious beings however one can not make the argument that they exist on the same level of consciousness, awareness, and intelligence as humans.

I think a thread unto itself will have to be devoted to the subject of Historical Materialism, but I personally discard the Material Dialectic of history while still putting credence in other Marxist theories such as the Labor Theory of Value. I don't believe that matter and material alone has guided man's destiny up until the present date, I believe history to be a healthy mixture of both Idealist and Materialist dialectics, not just one or the other. Whether it departs from Marxist theory or not is irrelevant as it has been stated Juche =/= Marxism.

Where does the bourgeoisie exist in Korea? Is that not your goal as a socialist to assimilate all the classes of said nation, by expropriating bourgeois property and thus assimilating the bourgeoisie into the former class of proletarians?

Secondly, culture can change due to a myriad of influences, but one's bloodline and history is what connects them to other members of the nation. Their historical bloodline, the hardship and achievements their ancestors have shared in the past. It is this identity that produces the culture, and today we are witnessing Cosmopolitan-Capitalism, a rootless society with no culture or identity outside of MTV or McDonalds.

I will ignore the rhetoric, but this conception of Monarchy is not necessarily equal to absolutism and anti-democratic. Men naturally differ, as CeltIberian's signature says "The dogma of innate human equality is no part of Communism". Indeed, then it is likewise that humans will organize themselves in hierarchical structures. That does not exclude democracy, nor even "From each according to their ability; to each according to their own need".

Furthermore, hereditary monarchy triumphs in North Korea because they are a people that has not yet broken away from that Tradition, which is admirable because we here in the west have been lacking a unique identity and tradition ever since the French Revolution.

It isn't contradictory, and I am not sure what you are asking. In the sense spoken here Autarky assumes an almost spiritual role, the North Korean people rather maintain their uniqueness, culture and traditions rather than open the gate to bourgeois exploitation and decadence simply to feed their faces. The U.S. constantly threatens to cut off any and all aid unless North Korea submits. Refer to my signature.

It may not be controlled by banksters, but it is controlled by a dictator.

Dictatorship and totalitarianism are bourgeois invented terms used in order to contrast regimes they don't like with their own regimes which they like to parade around as the most free, I implore you to not use the enemy's language. I would say the State of North Korea is wholly demonized by the western media, and it has been shown here that elections do take place on a local level.

Anyway, even if I were to buy into the "ZOMG the Kim dynasty oppresses their people so badly!", I would still say a Korean dictator is better than the dictatorship of the Western Bourgeoisie.

All systems should be examined, but I have reached the conclusion that Juche is an hierarchical, monarchical, brutal dictatorship in a most feudal structure. The military worship does little to counter this belief.

About the statement of the bourgeoisie existing in the DPRK, look in the article that you posted. It clearly states that in 2003 Kim Jung Ill said that both bourgeois and proletarian Koreans are more Korean than anything else. This implies that there are bourgeois Koreans. That means that the DPRK is not socialist.

Monarchy is undemocratic by it's very nature. I don't know how else to say it and don't know why I would have to explain that but I will if you want.

I can still use words that the current society uses to describe a system as authoritarian or dictatorial. Would you rather I switch to calling them strawberry and banana? To be serious though, it doesn't matter what word I use as long as the concept is the same.

Nazism is also demonized by the West, that doesn't make Nazism correct.

Red Aegis wrote:All systems should be examined, but I have reached the conclusion that Juche is an hierarchical, monarchical, brutal dictatorship in a most feudal structure. The military worship does little to counter this belief.

Nothing wrong with hierarchy, it is an illusion to think that something as natural as hierarchy would ever be abolished. It is far from "feudal", there is no feudal lords and peasants. It is collectivist. It isn't military worship, but Songun policy emphasizes the military as North Koreans need to be constantly aware of imperialist aggression. As stated before, even as we speak, there is thousands of U.S. troops on the NK/SK border. I also know for a fact I am not the only one on this site to support a draft for the military, the protection of the nation and people is a shared responsibility.

About the statement of the bourgeoisie existing in the DPRK, look in the article that you posted. It clearly states that in 2003 Kim Jung Ill said that both bourgeois and proletarian Koreans are more Korean than anything else. This implies that there are bourgeois Koreans. That means that the DPRK is not socialist.

It said that "bourgeois and proletarian Korean have a common interest in defending the common nation". At the time Kim Jong-Il was studying this his father, Kim Il Sung was already in power and collectivized North Korea eliminating the bourgeois class. Kim Jong Il's statement is true to a degree. I do belong to to the same nation as my own bourgeois counterparts, however, as Socialists it is our desire to do away with these useless and exploitative class boundaries.

Monarchy is undemocratic by it's very nature. I don't know how else to say it and don't know why I would have to explain that but I will if you want.

That is not true. Prior to the French Revolution a system of democratic estates existed alongside monarchy. Now, this system had some corruption in it which gave way to the revolution - but it was still organized around representative democracy through the estates.

I can still use words that the current society uses to describe a system as authoritarian or dictatorial. Would you rather I switch to calling them strawberry and banana? To be serious though, it doesn't matter what word I use as long as the concept is the same.

Current bourgeois society. Everything that doesn't exist as parliament to them is dictatorial or authoritarian.

Nazism is also demonized by the West, that doesn't make Nazism correct.

I'd have to say places like North Korea and the Soviet Union are almost demonized more than the Third Reich, but there is a great deal of misinformation about the Third Reich as well due to the fact that it was opposed to the domination of international capital - it was merely the domination of national capital (to use the Marxian definition of "fascism".) I simply don't think you're giving systems like Juche a fair shot due to media prejudice.

Open Revolt! wrote:unlike Marxism or Fascism, Juche has shown itself to be resiliant to attack and long-lasting.

The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because they developed a nuclear program and, for whatever reason, the North Korean nomenklatura prefers the enormous degree of power they wield more than the prospect of becoming wealthy through the liberalization of the nation's economy for the time being.

This philosophy is opposed to both idealism and materialism for both thought-systems essentially say that man is subject to outside forces beyond his control whereas Juche says that there is nothing man cannot do if he wills it

Which is absolute nonsense. To deny that consciousness is influenced by material factors is to deny reality.

Also this idea of making a God of oneself reminds me of the “left-hand path” of Julius Evola and his idea of deification as the goal of life and especially of the warrior-man.

Evola was a reactionary crackpot. That his philosophical theories can be compared with Juche at all is an indictment against the ideology, as far as I'm concerned.

Juche says that man is a superior being to animals who is innately superior and not simply an evolved higher form as the Marxists say.

"Superior" and "inferior" are subjective concepts. And is this line a rejection of evolution? Yet another commonality between Juche and Evola's philosophy, apparently.

Juche leans toward Hegel and discards Feurbach which is the exact same position Alexandr Dugin took in creating his National Bolshevism.

Much like the early fascist philosophers. Giovanni Gentile, for example, accepted the Hegelian dialectic but rejected Feuerbachian materialism.

“a bourgeois Korean and a proletarian Korean are both Koreans and share common interstes against foreigners who wish to control Korea”

No such "common interests" exist, for it can be (and often is) in bourgeois Koreans' material interest to support economic imperialism (i.e., globalization).

Juche says the masses must worship the leaders because the leader did not necessarily have to be good to them…..

And neither do the people have to be "good" to their so-called "leaders." Nothing can justify worshiping another human being, and I defy anyone to present a compelling case to the contrary.

Indeed Juche can be said to be monarchist, and an echo of the old Traditional ideas of divine kingship.

The notion of a "superior bloodline" justifying autocracy certainly conforms with classical defenses of privilege (be they aristocratic or Platonic).

The Koreans always stress that their ideology is meant only for their nation and people and can not and should not be exported and applied elsewhere.

Just as the Hitlerian National Socialists claimed.

Pantheon Rising wrote:The author never meant to compare the Fascism and Socialism

I disagree. He explicitly did so on numerous occasions for a reason. Judging from his seemingly enthusiastic comparison between Julius Evola's work and the reactionary elements of Juche, I would say that it's safe to assume that if the author doesn't self-identify as a fascist, he at least retains a favorable disposition toward the ideology.

There is also nothing wrong with dominance.

There is if there exists no rational justification for that dominance.

Men naturally differ, as CeltIberian's signature says "The dogma of innate human equality is no part of Communism". Indeed, then it is likewise that humans will organize themselves in hierarchical structures.

That's a complete non sequitur. Inequality doesn't necessitate hierarchy. To suggest otherwise is akin to justifying a maldistribution of wealth on the basis of man's diverse range and unequal distribution of aptitudes. It's sheer nonsense.

Furthermore, hereditary monarchy triumphs in North Korea because they are a people that has not yet broken away from that Tradition, which is admirable because we here in the west have been lacking a unique identity and tradition ever since the French Revolution.

Irrational traditions don't warrant admiration, and they especially don't warrant preservation if they're objectively harmful (as monarchy undoubtedly is).

The Traditionalist rejection of Enlightenment values (e.g., science, reason, etc.) merely underscores the profound extent to which the ideology is intellectually bankrupt. Now, unlike Traditionalism, postmodernism does challenge certain aspects of the Enlightenment in fairly interesting ways, but that's another topic altogether.

Nothing wrong with hierarchy, it is an illusion to think that something as natural as hierarchy would ever be abolished.

It's not a question of "abolishing" inequality, which can certainly be natural (e.g., differing levels of intelligence). Hierarchy, however, manifests itself according to how we as a society organize our economic and political institutions. In my opinion, for socialism to be sustainable, hierarchy must be eliminated much as is feasible—since disproportionate degrees of power often engender conflicting interests.

Celtiberian wrote:The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because they developed a nuclear program and, for whatever reason, the North Korean nomenklatura prefers the enormous degree of power they wield more than the prospect of becoming wealthy through the liberalization of the nation's economy for the time being.

So you concede to the anti-materialist idea that people are guided by more than material interests?

Which is absolute nonsense. To deny that consciousness is influenced by material factors is to deny reality.

See above. To claim that man is guided by matter alone is a denial of reality, the materialist view of history views humans as nothing more than products of material conditions, products heading towards an endpoint - not much different than the products mass produced on the capitalist assembly lines.

"Superior" and "inferior" are subjective concepts. And is this line a rejection of evolution? Yet another commonality between Juche and Evola's philosophy, apparently.

Humans are naturally subjective, no one views thing through a completely objective lens. I also didn't get the impression it was a rejection of evolution.

Much like the early fascist philosophers. Giovanni Gentile, for example, accepted the Hegelian dialectic but rejected Feuerbachian materialism.

Sure, it can be compared to Fascism in that aspect.

No such "common interests" exists, for it can be (and often is) in bourgeois Koreans' material interest to support economic imperialism (i.e., globalization).

Yes, but man alone isn't guided by material interests. In fact, it seems that the bourgeois class is the only one guided by materialism and matter fetishes.

The notion of a "superior bloodline" justifying autocracy certainly conforms with classical defenses of privilege (be they aristocratic or Platonic).

While I accept the notion that strong leadership is necessary, I reject the notion of hereditary monarchy so I won't make a case for it.

I disagree. He explicitly did so on numerous occasions for a reason. Judging from his seemingly enthusiastic comparison between Julius Evola's work and the reactionary elements of Juche, I would say that it's safe to assume that if the author doesn't self-identify as a fascist, he at least retains a favorable disposition toward the ideology.

I actually do not know what the author is, however, Julius Evola was never a Fascist and never carried membership in the Italian Fascist party.

Men naturally differ, as CeltIberian's signature says "The dogma of innate human equality is no part of Communism". Indeed, then it is likewise that humans will organize themselves in hierarchical structures.

That's a complete non sequitur. Inequality doesn't necessitate hierarchy. To suggest otherwise is akin to justifying a maldistribution of wealth on the basis of man's diverse range and unequal distribution of aptitudes. It's sheer nonsense.

If people are unequal in skills and abilities, it is natural that those with administrative skills should hold administrative positions thus implying some form of hierarchy even if it is accountable.

Irrational traditions don't warrant admiration, and they especially don't warrant preservation if they're objectively harmful (as monarchy undoubtedly is).

Well, you will have to tell the North Koreans that.

The Traditionalist rejection of Enlightenment values (e.g., science, reason, etc.) merely underscores the profound extent to which the ideology is intellectually bankrupt. Now, unlike Traditionalism, postmodernism does challenge certain aspects of the Enlightenment in fairly interesting ways, but that's another topic altogether.

I don't see how the "Enlightenment" brought reason at all, if anything it just stated that man had "Natural Liberties" bestowed upon them by some higher power (not to mention property is one of these liberties), if anything that should conflict with your materialist world view.

It's not a question of "abolishing" inequality, which can certainly be natural (e.g., differing levels of intelligence). Hierarchy, however, manifests itself according to how we as a society organize our economic and political institutions. In my opinion, for socialism to be sustainable, hierarchy must be eliminated much as is feasible—since disproportionate degrees of power often engender conflicting interests.

Nationalism is supposed to be a factor that unites those with different interests directing them towards the National Interests. The combination of socialism and nationalism should do away with rigid capitalistic class structure that acts as a boundary to achieving this goal.

Pantheon Rising wrote:So you concede to the anti-materialist idea that people are guided by more than material interests?

How did you deduce that from what I wrote? The nomenklatura in North Korea are presented with two choices: wealth or power. That they've decided to elevate the latter over the former for a time isn't a rejection of materialism, for materialism doesn't deny the possibility of choice.

To claim that man is guided by matter alone is a denial of reality, the materialist view of history views humans as nothing more than products of material conditions, products heading towards an endpoint

What you're describing is a caricature of historical materialism, what Lenin referred to as "vulgar economism." Man is not guided in an absolute sense by anything. The dialectical method is basically a rejection of essentialism. In short, it claims that all factors of life (e.g., nature, culture, technology, economy, and ideology) shape and are shaped by one another. Certain Marxists have misinterpreted the materialist dialectic which Marx followed as being a form of economic reductionism, but the primary reason Marx chose to emphasize economic factors in his writings was because they were sorely neglected by most scholars at the time.

I also didn't get the impression it was a rejection of evolution.

The line, "man is a superior being to animals who is innately superior and not simply an evolved higher form" (emphasis added), seems to disparage the notion that human beings are evolved organisms, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but man alone isn't guided by material interests. In fact, it seems that the bourgeois class is the only one guided by materialism and matter fetishes.

Again, no one has claimed that mankind is only guided by material forces. However, in this specific context, if a bourgeois individual does not follow his material interests, he will soon find himself proletarianized. The institutional framework on which capitalism is based ensures that no alleged "common interest" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie can materialize.

I actually do not know what the author is, however, Julius Evola was never a Fascist and never carried membership in the Italian Fascist party.

Correct. Evola's views were actually to the Right of fascism, thereby rendering an acceptance of his philosophy even more suspicious.

If people are unequal in skills and abilities, it is natural that those with administrative skills should hold administrative positions thus implying some form of hierarchy even if it is accountable.

Hierarchy is a "system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." Under socialism, people are not ranked according to status or authority since all positions of authority are temporary, conditional, and accountable. Acknowledging that different jobs require different degrees of ability isn't a capitulation to the inevitability of hierarchy. As Mikhail Bakunin argued,

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.
Bakunin, Mikhail. God and the State, pp. 32-33.

Hierarchies form when people are afforded special luxuries and unconditional authority over others; and since all decisions must ultimately be consented to by the people, socialism cannot be said to be hierarchical.

Well, you will have to tell the North Koreans that.

It's not up to me to do that. They are perfectly capable of figuring it out for themselves.

I don't see how the "Enlightenment" brought reason at all

Of course it didn't 'bring us' reason, what it did was elevate its importance. The revolutionary critique of monarchy was based on the inability of monarchists to present a logical and irrefutable defense of that institution.

if anything it just stated that man had "Natural Liberties" bestowed upon them by some higher power (not to mention property is one of these liberties), if anything that should conflict with your materialist world view.

You should probably consult less biased sources on Enlightenment philosophy, if that's all you believe it represented. Liberty was but one facet of Enlightenment thought. And by attributing unalienable rights to nature (or a deistic "god"), they were rejecting the dogma that our rights are conferred unto us by some capricious and all-knowing entity who speaks through human representatives on earth. In other words, they were attempting to construct their own basis for rights (based on rational deduction), which was undoubtedly superior to groveling before traditional institutions incapable of logically justifying their authority.

Nationalism is supposed to be a factor that unites those with different interests directing them towards the National Interests.

Perhaps as you understand it. In my view, nationalism is a benign endogenous sentiment which can either be channeled in progressive or reactionary directions. It isn't meant to subjugate opposing interests, but rather to inform certain political policy decisions.

Celtiberian wrote:How did you deduce that from what I wrote? The nomenklatura in North Korea are presented with two choices: wealth or power. That they've decided to elevate the latter over the former for a time isn't a rejection of materialism, for materialism doesn't deny the possibility of choice.

From my readings and debates with rather orthodox Marxists, the materialist view of things seems to be a system of analyzing history (and current day events) in which all facets of human life are outgrowths of material economic conditions. It implies that people will always act to procure their economic well being. I implied it was a contradiction to the material dialectic of history in that the North Korean "nomenklatura" as you called them, chose to keep North Korea, North Korean - rather than liberalizing and amassing wealth.

What you're describing is a caricature of historical materialism, what Lenin referred to as "vulgar economism."

And Comrade Lenin and I can agree on this.

Man is not guided in an absolute sense by anything. The dialectical method is basically a rejection of essentialism. In short, it claims that all factors of life (e.g., nature, culture, technology, economy, and ideology) shape and are shaped by one another. Certain Marxists have misinterpreted the dialectic which Marx followed as being a form of economic reductionism, but the primary reason Marx chose to emphasize economic factors in his writings was because they were sorely neglected by most scholars at the time.

My sole objection to the Materialist dialectic is that, as stated above, all the Orthodox Marxist sources I have read and talked to (members of RevLeft are on this list) discount everything as an outgrowth of the economy or people just making shit up to justify their wealth. This is wholly untrue. This is what leads RevLeft types to militant Atheism as well as rootless cosmopolitanism, because they believe life does not have meaning outside of obtaining objects.

I, myself, believe in an integral dialectic of Material and Ideal thought.

The line, "man is a superior being to animals who is innately superior and not simply an evolved higher form" (emphasis added), seems to disparage the notion that human beings are evolved organisms, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think so. The word simply in there implies that the author was saying man is not an evolved higher form alone, but is also innately superior to due his superior form of conscious and reasoning.

Again, no one has claimed that mankind is only guided by material forces.

Refer to questions above.

However, in this specific context, if a bourgeois individual does not follow his material interests, he will soon find himself proletarianized.

True and good point, this is why capitalism is seen as a materialistic ideology and one of the reasons for my rejection.

The institutional framework on which capitalism is based ensures that no alleged "common interest" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie can manifest.

A Korean bourgeois who wants to resist an American imperial bourgeoisie does not have a common interest with a Korean proletarian? Because if the Korean bourgeois were to allow the American businesses in his homeland than he would find himself proletarianized, and the proletarians themselves would be reduced to an even worse state. Therefore, in this setting, they can indeed have a common interest. However, this is of little importance to present day North Korea as it is already collectivized.

Correct. Evola's views were actually to the Right of fascism, thereby rendering an acceptance of his philosophy even more suspicious.

Indeed it was to the right. I am not going to lie, he is an inspiration to a degree, however he is someone that has to be read very selectively. Sometimes he is reactionary simply for the sake of it.

Hierarchies form when people are afforded special luxuries and unconditional authority over others; and since all decisions must ultimately be consented to by the people, socialism cannot be said to be hierarchical.

As someone who briefly considered taking up the banner of National Anarchism (coming from the Strasserite school of thought) I happen to agree with Bakunin, however, humans given the opportunity almost everywhere in the past have organized themselves in a sort of hierarchy. Even in the French Revolution where "Equality!" was one of the rallying cries, humans organized themselves into a hierarchy.

It's not up to me to do that. They are perfectly capable of figuring it out for themselves.

Time will tell their fate, however, you are right that it is up to them and the western power should keep their nose out of it completely.

You should probably consult less biased sources on Enlightenment philosophy, if that's all you believe it represented. Liberty was but one facet of Enlightenment thought. And by attributing unalienable rights to nature (or a deistic "god"), they were rejecting the dogma that our rights are conferred unto us by some capricious and all-knowing entity who speaks through human representatives on earth. In other words, they were attempting to construct their own basis for rights (based on rational deduction), which was undoubtedly superior to groveling before traditional institutions incapable of logically justifying their authority.

And their reasoning made about as much sense as the Monarchists.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I implied it was a contradiction to the material dialectic of history in that the North Korean "nomenklatura" as you called them, chose to keep North Korea, North Korean - rather than liberalizing and amassing wealth.

The materialist dialectic, even in its revised, more reductionist form, doesn't posit that human beings possess no agency whatsoever. What it's supposed to answer, when applied to history, is from whence ideological viewpoints originate and the conditions in which they will become hegemonic. For example, ideas of democracy and private property precede the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century, but they were largely ridiculed and marginalized, and thus didn't gain wide acceptance. That is, until the technological basis existed wherein private property could be utilized to amass great fortunes. It's no coincidence, then, that the industrial revolution soon followed the bourgeois revolutions. Idealists maintain that it was the ideas themselves which gave rise to the mode of production, materialists suggest the opposite.

My sole objection to the Materialist dialectic is that, as stated above, all the Orthodox Marxist sources I have read and talked to (members of RevLeft are on this list) discount everything as an outgrowth of the economy or people just making shit up to justify their wealth. This is wholly untrue.

It's not "wholly untrue" by any means; it's partially untrue. And RevLeft is the last place one should consult to learn of Marxism—or any other topic, for that matter. The dialectical method can be rather difficult for many people to grasp, and that is why so many individuals prefer to adhere to the simplistic, reductionist caricature thereof. It's rather like theology. Most people don't wish to trouble themselves by reading the bible metaphorically, and, therefore, having to extract a wide variety of interpretations from each story—and, thereafter, figuring out which one is the most reasonable; they much prefer reading the book literally.

This is what leads RevLeft types to militant Atheism as well as rootless cosmopolitanism, because they believe life does not have meaning outside of obtaining objects.

Nonsense. Few RevLeft members hold consumerism in high regard. And what really leads people to militant atheism are the subcultures which have formed around the ideology—which enable people to use it as a basis for taking part in a cause larger than themselves, as well as for finding a community in which to participate (which is of immense importance to a lot of people in our atomized, late capitalist culture).

Life doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. It means whatever we as individuals think it does. Some take the Darwinian route and believe it's simply about survival and leaving behind a progeny; others believe it's about progress, with the end goal being a posthuman existence; and still others are under the impression that it was divinely created with specifically us in mind. There's no right or wrong answer.

I, myself, believe in an integral dialectic of Material and Ideal thought.

The dialectical method is inherently inclusive, so there's no need to establish your own synthesis.

I don't think so. The word simply in there implies that the author was saying man is not an evolved higher form alone, but is also innately superior to due his superior form of conscious and reasoning.

And, once again, notions of 'superiority' and 'inferiority' are entirely subjective. Some people have a higher opinion of their pets than they do of their neighbors, and there exists no objective basis from which to prove them wrong. You can say that a human being is more intelligent than a dog, for instance, but whether one should value intelligence is itself subjective.

True and good point, this is why capitalism is seen as a materialistic ideology and one of the reasons for my rejection.

I think the overuse of the term "materialism" can be confusing to people, as there is an enormous difference between materialism as a philosophical concept, and materialism as a term used to denote an obsession with consumption (which is better termed 'consumerism,' in my opinion).

A Korean bourgeois who wants to resist an American imperial bourgeoisie does not have a common interest with a Korean proletarian?

No, because the end result of the anti-imperialist struggle benefits each class in differently. For example, a Korean capitalist involved in a labor-intensive industry (the only sort who would conceivably have a material interest in opposing imperialism) may well be threatened by competition from the imperial threat, but the end result for the proletariat is ultimately wage slavery whatever the outcome. It matters not whether your exploiter is foreign or domestic. And this is precisely the problem with national liberation struggles which seek to collaborate with their national bourgeoisie.

Sometimes he is reactionary simply for the sake of it.

Virtually everything the man ever wrote was complete gibberish; inane ramblings which merely highlighted the depths of his madness. I have absolutely no interest in discussing his views any in detail, so I propose we just drop this subject.

humans given the opportunity almost everywhere in the past have organized themselves in a sort of hierarchy. Even in the French Revolution where "Equality!" was one of the rallying cries, humans organized themselves into a hierarchy.

Humans have been afforded very few opportunities to organize themselves as they wish in recent history, so I have no idea what you're basing this statement on. We have largely been victims of circumstance, wherein privilege (and, by extension, hierarchy) is secured by an asymmetrical distribution of power and ideological manipulation. Hunter gatherer tribes (formations of which humanity spent the bulk of its existence), however, were/are highly egalitarian, and that's because there was/is a relatively even distribution of power within them. Yes, chieftains existed in certain tribes, but they were/are more ceremonial than anything else. So, if a physically stronger male sought to dominate weaker males in the tribe, for example, the weaker males could simply organize themselves and collectively kill the potential despot (or simply kill him in his sleep). The aforementioned equality of power which existed within tribes, and the fact no surplus product could be generated, is why Marxists frequently refer to this phase of human development as "primitive communism." It wasn't until new forms of weaponry were developed that an unequal distribution of force ascended and, alas, the basis for hierarchy materialized. The scarcity of iron, or horses, or gun powder, at any given time, ensured that those who amassed wealth would be in a position to secure those resources, form an army, subjugate people, and maintain power. This maldistribution of force continues to this very day and, not surprisingly, so too does hierarchy.

Moreover, there have been countless psychological studies conducted which demonstrate that when people are presented with situations where democracy and autocracy are the organizational options, people overwhelmingly favor the former. This is likely why workers at the start of the industrial revolution—before sophisticated ideological methods were developed to manufacture consent—profoundly disliked the dictatorial nature of capitalist firms (coining the term "wage slavery" to describe the situation) and even preferred communal agriculture to submitting before a capitalist boss (which led to the Inclosure Acts in Great Britain, among other things). You should really study the history of capitalist primitive accumulation. Simply put, people tolerate hierarchy because they are seldom provided an actual choice in the matter, they don't desire it (a small percentage of masochists notwithstanding).

And their reasoning made about as much sense as the Monarchists.

Absolutely not. Their "reasoning" was, as that very term suggests, based off of reason. The monarchists could merely appeal to tradition and increasingly hollow theories of "Divine Rights."

Celtiberian wrote:The materialist dialectic, even in its revised, more reductionist form, doesn't posit that human beings possess no agency whatsoever. What it's supposed to answer, when applied to history, is from whence ideological viewpoints originate and the conditions in which they will become hegemonic. For example, ideas of democracy and private property precede the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th century, but they were largely ridiculed and marginalized, and thus didn't gain wide acceptance. That is, until the technological basis existed wherein private property could be utilized to amass great fortunes. It's no coincidence, then, that the industrial revolution soon followed the bourgeois revolutions. Idealists maintain that it was the ideas themselves which gave rise to the mode of production, materialists suggest the opposite.

What exactly was this technological base that existed wherein individuals could amass wealth through the medium of private property? Also, why does there seem to be the dichotomy of "Materialists" vs. "Idealists"? I suppose you consider yourself a materialist? You admitted yourself that material factors are not the sole factor.

It's not "wholly untrue" by any means; it's partially untrue. And RevLeft is the last place one should consult to learn of Marxism—or any other topic, for that matter. The dialectical method can be rather difficult for many people to grasp, and that is why so many individuals prefer to adhere to the simplistic, reductionist caricature thereof. It's rather like theology. Most people don't wish to trouble themselves by reading the bible metaphorically, and, therefore, having to extract a wide variety of interpretations from each story—and, thereafter, figuring out which one is the most reasonable; they much prefer reading the book literally.

I can grasp Hegel's dialectical method, what I am skeptical of is the materialist conception of history. This is largely due to the little amount of literature I have read on the subject and largely due to the fact that, like I said, everywhere I have read it of - it seems to reduce every human outgrowth as a product of material conditions which is why as I understand it that many Fascists rejected Marxism due to individuals within the Marxist movements who belittle traditional institutions (such as the Church, or a particular State, or a custom) and attribute them to nothing more than a consequence of material factors.

Nonsense. Few RevLeft members hold consumerism in high regard. And what really leads people to militant atheism are the subcultures which have formed around the ideology—which enable people to use it as a basis for taking part in a cause larger than themselves, as well as for finding a community in which to participate (which is of immense importance to a lot of people in our atomized, late capitalist culture).

I think it would be worthwhile to point that out to the militant Atheists who use "The Materialist Worldview" to justify their militant atheism.

Life doesn't have any intrinsic meaning. It means whatever we as individuals think it does. Some take the Darwinian route and believe it's simply about survival and leaving behind a progeny; others believe it's about progress, with the end goal being a posthuman existence; and still others are under the impression that it was divinely created with specifically us in mind. There's no right or wrong answer.

Without going into philosophy, I will say that I disagree. I think nations work better when, seen as organism, they're all united towards a common goal and meaning. For many in the Soviet Union it was the ideal of Communism that drove it forward, while in places like the Third Race it was race Idealism.

And, once again, notions of 'superiority' and 'inferiority' are entirely subjective. Some people have a higher opinion of their pets than they do of their neighbors, and there exists no objective basis from which to prove them wrong. You can say that a human being is more intelligent than a dog, for instance, but whether one should value intelligence is itself subjective.

I understand what you are trying to say, however, it is useless to view the world through a completely objective lens. Let's hear what you think. Are humans superior to animals due to the fact they have an increased intelligence and conscious?

No, because the end result of the anti-imperialist struggle benefits each class in differently. For example, a Korean capitalist involved in a labor-intensive industry (the only sort who would conceivably have a material interest in opposing imperialism) may well be threatened by competition from the imperial threat, but the end result for the proletariat is ultimately wage slavery whatever the outcome. It matters not whether your exploiter is foreign or domestic. And this is precisely the problem with national liberation struggles which seek to collaborate with their national bourgeoisie.

I will disagree here, especially in this day and age. It is possible to maintain a unique culture and identity while a domestic bourgeois dominates (for the mean time) but as soon as the globalist-liberal capitalist system sweeps in, a nation and people will lose its identity and culture in a flood of modernism and it is very hard to salvage.

However, even with that said, I still prefer the tactics of Socialist anti-imperialist groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Virtually everything the man ever wrote was complete gibberish; inane ramblings which merely highlighted the depths of his madness. I have absolutely no interest in discussing his views any in detail, so I propose we just drop this subject.

You make the man sound like a crazed H.P. Lovecraft character lol, but nonetheless I will drop it. However I will leave you with some food for thought.

Marx himself dubbed the first stages of production in human history "Primitive Communism". A revolution implies one goes full circle and back to a beginning point. Evola said himself in "Men Among the Ruins" :

"Revolution no longer signifies the overthrow of a legitimate established order, but rather an action aimed at eliminating a newly emerged disorder and at reestablishing a state of normalcy"

Marx and Evola can even be compared in this instance.

Humans have been afforded very few opportunities to organize themselves as they wish in recent history, so I have no idea what you're basing this statement on. We have largely been victims of circumstance, wherein privilege (and, by extension, hierarchy) is secured by an asymmetrical distribution of power and ideological manipulation. Hunter gatherer tribes (formations of which humanity spent the bulk of its existence), however, were/are highly egalitarian, and that's because there was/is a relatively even distribution of power within them. Yes, chieftains existed in certain tribes, but they were/are more ceremonial than anything else. So, if a physically stronger male sought to dominate weaker males in the tribe, for example, the weaker males could simply organize themselves and collectively kill the potential despot (or simply kill him in his sleep). The aforementioned equality of power which existed within tribes, and the fact no surplus product could be generated, is why Marxists frequently refer to this phase of human development as "primitive communism." It wasn't until new forms of weaponry were developed that an unequal distribution of force ascended and, alas, the basis for hierarchy materialized. The scarcity of iron, or horses, or gun powder, at any given time, ensured that those who amassed wealth would be in a position to secure those resources, form an army, subjugate people, and maintain power. This maldistribution of force continues to this very day and, not surprisingly, so too does hierarchy.

Yes, but 1.) Hunter-Gatherer tribes were never centralized and 2.) You admitted that there was indeed some ceremonial leadership. Who is to say this sort of ceremonial leadership will not exist in the future? Who is to say that the hunterer-gather model can be applied to the scale of a large nation?

With that said I think Marxists have a lot in common with so called "Traditionalists". Whereas Traditionalists view each stage as degeneration, Marxists see the different forms of technology leading to new forms of hierarchy and thus degeneration as well. This is where National Bolsheviks come in.

Moreover, there have been countless psychological studies conducted which demonstrate that when people are presented with situations where democracy and autocracy are the organizational options, people overwhelmingly favor the former. This is likely why workers at the start of the industrial revolution—before sophisticated ideological methods were developed to manufacture consent—profoundly disliked the dictatorial nature of capitalist firms (coining the term "wage slavery" to describe the situation) and even preferred communal agriculture to submitting before a capitalist boss (which led to the Inclosure Acts in Great Britain, among other things). You should really study the history of capitalist primitive accumulation. Simply put, people tolerate hierarchy because they are seldom provided an actual choice in the matter, they don't desire it (a small percentage of masochists notwithstanding).

In which cases were these studies conducted? On what scale? I am aware that workers preferred communal agriculture over capitalist firms, however, that doesn't say anything about the organization of "the State".

Absolutely not. Their "reasoning" was, as that very term suggests, based off of reason. The monarchists could merely appeal to tradition and increasingly hollow theories of "Divine Rights."

And did not the enlightenment thinkers do the exact same thing? The 'Divine Rights of Man"? The natural liberties? The monarchy was indeed corrupt and morally bankrupt, however, the French revolutionaries themselves could do nothing but talk about the same mystical rights that the Monarchists talked about and promise a better future (which, as we see today, was a lie).

Pantheon Rising wrote:The monarchy was indeed corrupt and morally bankrupt, however, the French revolutionaries themselves could do nothing but talk about the same mystical rights that the Monarchists talked about and promise a better future (which, as we see today, was a lie).

Really? So you would fancy a life as french peasant in rural XVIII century France, when you had to obey your landlord because he was from a noble family, possibly give him your sister as a concubine while also giving him a substancial part of your production, "just because", and in the spare time, give the rest of your production to the church, unless you want to be considered an heretic?

I also don't see the point in criticizing the militant atheists. It was about time some counter weight to "religion" appeared around. Granted, many of the followers are hipster idiots, but ultimately, the more people question the status quo, the bigger the chance they might stumble across socialism.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Really? So you would fancy a life as french peasant in rural XVIII century France, when you had to obey your landlord because he was from a noble family, possibly give him your sister as a concubine while also giving him a substancial part of your production, "just because", and in the spare time, give the rest of your production to the church, unless you want to be considered an heretic?

I never said that sort of system was ideal, I only stated that what the French Revolutionaries had to offer wasn't much better. Look at the industrial revolution and tell me the shaken, proletarian masses were in any better condition than those who lived under the thumb of a feudal lord. What it did do was change the meaning of progress to mean technological development above all other values. Tell me the liberal society we live in today where everyone just scrambles around to satisfy their want of material goods (material bases aren't even guaranteed nonetheless!) is any "better".

I also don't see the point in criticizing the militant atheists. It was about time some counter weight to "religion" appeared around. Granted, many of the followers are hipster idiots, but ultimately, the more people question the status quo, the bigger the chance they might stumble across socialism.

Because they're all fat dorks who shove bananas up their backside and many derive their Atheism from enlightenment philosophy to begin with. Seeing as how theocracy is no longer the status quo it has nothing to do with Socialism, many militant Atheists (typical RevLefters aside) are even economically liberal.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I never said that sort of system was ideal, I only stated that what the French Revolutionaries had to offer wasn't much better. Look at the industrial revolution and tell me the shaken, proletarian masses were in any better condition than those who lived under the thumb of a feudal lord. What it did do was change the meaning of progress to mean technological development above all other values. Tell me the liberal society we live in today where everyone just scrambles around to satisfy their want of material goods (material bases aren't even guaranteed nonetheless!) is any "better".

I'd say you are correct, but personally I believe the direction we need to go in to solve the problems of today's society is forward, not back.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I never said that sort of system was ideal, I only stated that what the French Revolutionaries had to offer wasn't much better. Look at the industrial revolution and tell me the shaken, proletarian masses were in any better condition than those who lived under the thumb of a feudal lord. What it did do was change the meaning of progress to mean technological development above all other values. Tell me the liberal society we live in today where everyone just scrambles around to satisfy their want of material goods (material bases aren't even guaranteed nonetheless!) is any "better".

I honestly find it mind-boggling how any individual born within the last few centuries could belittle the Enlightenment. The very fact that you are here, capable of expressing your extreme political views freely (to use your public reason), is a result of the Enlightenment. Separation of church and state, abolition of Divine right, science, individual conscience and independent thought, civil liberties, etc., mean nothing to you?

Do not be a complete idiot.

Godfaesten wrote:I'd say you are correct, but personally I believe the direction we need to go in to solve the problems of today's society is forward, not back.

I agree, time doesn't move backward, only forward. It is important that we go forward in the name of general progress (rather than progress as understood by liberal French Revolutionaries), elevating humans on a spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and material (physical) level while rediscovering our identities (Every people should do this) that were lost with liberalization.

Rev Scare wrote:I honestly find it mind-boggling how any individual born within the last few centuries could belittle the Enlightenment. The very fact that you are here, capable of expressing your extreme political views freely (to use your public reason), is a result of the Enlightenment. Separation of church and state, abolition of Divine right, science, individual conscience and independent thought, civil liberties, etc., mean nothing to you?

Do not be a complete idiot.

I will ignore the diatribe, however, as I have stated before my rejection of the Enlightenment has nothing to do with me somehow being a supporter (or even apologist) for Monarchy or Fedualism in which the Catholic church bitterly ruled over everything.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I never said that sort of system was ideal, I only stated that what the French Revolutionaries had to offer wasn't much better. Look at the industrial revolution and tell me the shaken, proletarian masses were in any better condition than those who lived under the thumb of a feudal lord. What it did do was change the meaning of progress to mean technological development above all other values. Tell me the liberal society we live in today where everyone just scrambles around to satisfy their want of material goods (material bases aren't even guaranteed nonetheless!) is any "better".

You are here, typing in an internet forum about socialism in this "liberal" society of ours. Had the french revolution never happened, you would be maybe in some hay stack wondering if you will have food the next day. I take the advantages of that over the bad points any day, bad points that are not necessarily linked to the Revolutionaries ideals. I am sure it never crossed their mind the problems of a capitalism mode of production, when all they wanted was a more rational and fair world.

Because they're all fat dorks who shove bananas up their backside and many derive their Atheism from enlightenment philosophy to begin with. Seeing as how theocracy is no longer the status quo it has nothing to do with Socialism, many militant Atheists (typical RevLefters aside) are even economically liberal.

And...? So you have something against atheism, or you have some grudge against atheists? And what exactly is so bad about the enlightenment philosophy? Some post modernism critique aside, i think you just have a problem with the fact that society doesn't value religion or "traditional values" enough.

Thats one of my main grips with conservatives. They are more worried with sex or abortion or religion, than they are with anything really traditional, like dishes, way of life, language, etc.

The world is being formatted into the same work schedule, the same language, the same food, the same clothes, but the "conservatives" don't care one bit, all they want to talk about is religion and sex.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:You are here, typing in an internet forum about socialism in this "liberal" society of ours. Had the french revolution never happened, you would be maybe in some hay stack wondering if you will have food the next day. I take the advantages of that over the bad points any day, bad points that are not necessarily linked to the Revolutionaries ideals. I am sure it never crossed their mind the problems of a capitalism mode of production, when all they wanted was a more rational and fair world.

And had the Germans won WW2 we would be speaking German, and had the Mongols not helped spread the plague in Europe millions of people wouldn't have died, and had Martel not chased out the moors France would be an Islamic State. Your entire argument is fallacious due to the fact that you're appealing to an alternative history that never happened and especially since you are making guesses at where I would fit into such a society. If liberal establishments allow the flow of free speech and information over the internet and elsewhere and this leads to their own undoing, that is their problem, not mine.

I might add that this freedom is very subjective, for example, in Europe there are all types of laws of what you can say and what you can't say - you should knowing being from a European state yourself. If we didn't have a constitution here in America that made it clear "Free Speech" was granted to all citizens I have no doubt that we would have similar laws.

And furthermore, as much as everyone here will hate it, I will quote Evola on liberal hypocrisy when he issued this statement in his defense trial:

Some like to depict Fascism as an "oblique tyranny." During that "tyranny" I never had to undergo a situation like the present one.

Therefore, whether you are criticizing liberal society either from the right (as Evola was) or from the left (as I often do) it is easy to see that the freedoms granted to us in liberal society are entirely subjective.

And...? So you have something against atheism, or you have some grudge against atheists? And what exactly is so bad about the enlightenment philosophy? Some post modernism critique aside, i think you just have a problem with the fact that society doesn't value religion or "traditional values" enough.

I have no problem with Atheism and individual Atheists, no problem at all. I 1.) dislike militant Atheists who think they are being edgy, cool, and "revolutionary" by bashing religious institutions which have ceased to be part of the State for hundreds of years and 2.) Militant Atheists that have a very unhealthy nihilistic tendency to want to wipe out anything remotely traditional including religious, spiritual, or cultural customs/norms. To quote Kai Murros:

Common tendencies within the mentality of radical leftism are the healthy and youthful desires to shake obsolete and reactionary belief systems, but on the other hand a nihilistic frenzy to wipe out everything remotely traditional.

Thats one of my main grips with conservatives. They are more worried with sex or abortion or religion, than they are with anything really traditional, like dishes, way of life, language, etc.

First of all, I could care less about what someone does in the bedroom or what particular religion they happen to follow. Second of all abortion could be saved for another thread.

The world is being formatted into the same work schedule, the same language, the same food, the same clothes, but the "conservatives" don't care one bit, all they want to talk about is religion and sex.

Exactly why these "conservatives" should be absolutely and utterly discarded.

Pantheon Rising wrote:And had the Germans won WW2 we would be speaking German, and had the Mongols not helped spread the plague in Europe millions of people wouldn't have died, and had Martel not chased out the moors France would be an Islamic State. Your entire argument is fallacious due to the fact that you're appealing to an alternative history that never happened and especially since you are making guesses at where I would fit into such a society. If liberal establishments allow the flow of free speech and information over the internet and elsewhere and this leads to their own undoing, that is their problem, not mine.

I might add that this freedom is very subjective, for example, in Europe there are all types of laws of what you can say and what you can't say - you should knowing being from a European state yourself. If we didn't have a constitution here in America that made it clear "Free Speech" was granted to all citizens I have no doubt that we would have similar laws.

And furthermore, as much as everyone here will hate it, I will quote Evola on liberal hypocrisy when he issued this statement in his defense trial:

Some like to depict Fascism as an "oblique tyranny." During that "tyranny" I never had to undergo a situation like the present one.

Therefore, whether you are criticizing liberal society either from the right (as Evola was) or from the left (as I often do) it is easy to see that the freedoms granted to us in liberal society are entirely subjective.

You know exactly what he was saying, the way that the world was developing was pushing the power towards the merchant class. This lead to a questioning of the Monarchies' authority as their power was waning. With the onset of this new era of questioning, many positive ideas were devised. These ideas included the freedom of speech and many other ideas that made it into the constitution of the United States, precisely due to the founding fathers being 'children of the enlightenment'. The very constitution that you use to attack Enlightenment values is a product of those very values.

Everything's subjective so I don't know what your issue is about accepting that different groups arrived at different laws based upon Enlightenment ideals, especially given your view of differences in national characters. Also, you act as though there are things that are not subjective, I should like you to prove it.

I have no problem with Atheism and individual Atheists, no problem at all. I 1.) dislike militant Atheists who think they are being edgy, cool, and "revolutionary" by bashing religious institutions which have ceased to be part of the State for hundreds of years and 2.) Militant Atheists that have a very unhealthy nihilistic tendency to want to wipe out anything remotely traditional including religious, spiritual, or cultural customs/norms. To quote Kai Murros:

Common tendencies within the mentality of radical leftism are the healthy and youthful desires to shake obsolete and reactionary belief systems, but on the other hand a nihilistic frenzy to wipe out everything remotely traditional.

You keep using quotes as though they give extra authority, but that's beside the point. You were just praising free speech, yet you dislike that some talk meanly about religious institutions? Would you have them silenced? If so you are a hypocrite, if not why bring up something that should only just annoy you and is tangential to the subject? As for the nihilism and questioning customs, prove that this is a bad thing.

Red Aegis wrote:You know exactly what he was saying, the way that the world was developing was pushing the power towards the merchant class. This lead to a questioning of the Monarchies' authority as their power was waning. With the onset of this new era of questioning, many positive ideas were devised. These ideas included the freedom of speech and many other ideas that made it into the constitution of the United States, precisely due to the founding fathers being 'children of the enlightenment'. The very constitution that you use to attack Enlightenment values is a product of those very values.

Constitutionalism and the drafting of documents for government predates the Enlightenment - Magna Carta ring a bell? Also see above. Just because a system gives me "the right" to speak out against it doesn't justify its existence.

Everything's subjective so I don't know what your issue is about accepting that different groups arrived at different laws based upon Enlightenment ideals, especially given your view of differences in national characters. Also, you act as though there are things that are not subjective, I should like you to prove it.

I was actually quite clear throughout this thread that humans are a subjective species. Secondly modernism, liberalism, and enlightenment values are today not being arrived at upon people's own will but being forced down people's throats by the threat of bombs.

Pantheon Rising wrote:You keep using quotes as though they give extra authority, but that's beside the point. You were just praising free speech, yet you dislike that some talk meanly about religious institutions? Would you have them silenced? If so you are a hypocrite, if not why bring up something that should only just annoy you and is tangential to the subject? As for the nihilism and questioning customs, prove that this is a bad thing.

I just use quotes to reinforce my position and make it better understood, a lot of people do it. I believe after the revolution and the liberal-capitalist world is trampled upon these militant tendencies will gradually fade away. As CeltIberian pointed out it mostly people looking for acceptance in various sub-cultures and cliques within our individualistic society. Once purpose is restored, and the people are assimilated into directly governing and participating in their nations it won't be such a big problem.

America itself is suffering from national nihilism, look at our society today. As I have said people have no purpose beyond consumerism. Statistics show for themselves when easily the most nihilist nation in the world (as well as reactionary) has the highest crime rates, highest amount of rapes, pollution, highest divorce rate, highest teen birth rate, highest heart attack, the most prisoners incarcerated and the highest amount of McDonalds. But I guess the liberal-capitalist system is free of a moral critique because the strand of Marxism you advocate doesn't attack bourgeois values.

Pantheon Rising wrote:What exactly was this technological base that existed wherein individuals could amass wealth through the medium of private property?

The forces of production, in general, developed to a point which rendered feudal social relations obsolete. For example, advances in agricultural techniques increased yields to a point in which far more of the surplus product could be commodified than was previously possible—thereby increasing market activity exponentially. Shortly thereafter, manufacturing developed and it was soon discovered that the most practical method by which to profitably produce commodities in such a context was through the employment of wage labor. This inevitably gave rise to a class struggle between the nascent bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was the slogan which the bourgeoisie utilized to secure support from the working masses in their revolutions against the Ancien Régime. However, the people soon realized that the ideal for which they had sacrificed so much was illusory. They had merely replaced feudal subjugation with wage slavery and, consequently, immediately began to struggle against the new order. The workers didn't voluntarily construct yet another hierarchical society in its place, as you suggested.

Also, why does there seem to be the dichotomy of "Materialists" vs. "Idealists"? I suppose you consider yourself a materialist? You admitted yourself that material factors are not the sole factor.

I am indeed a materialist, in that I don't accept supernatural theories as being a legitimate basis for inquiry. Cognition is itself material and, unbeknownst to many, the dialectical method is a holistic form of analysis which rejects economic determinism just as it rejects all forms of essentialism. Essentialist forms of dialectical materialism have, of course, been developed over the years, but they suffer the same fate which positivism in general does, i.e., they're susceptible to the epistemological problem of overdetermination. That's not to say that every positivist conception of Marxism is nonsensical. Personally, I find the Anglo-Marxist tradition—represented by analytical thinkers such as G. A. Cohen and Maurice Cornforth—quite convincing and I frequently oscillate between the two schools of thought depending on the subject I'm addressing.

I can grasp Hegel's dialectical method, what I am skeptical of is the materialist conception of history. This is largely due to the little amount of literature I have read on the subject and largely due to the fact that, like I said, everywhere I have read it of - it seems to reduce every human outgrowth as a product of material conditions which is why as I understand it that many Fascists rejected Marxism due to individuals within the Marxist movements who belittle traditional institutions (such as the Church, or a particular State, or a custom) and attribute them to nothing more than a consequence of material factors.

First of all, I suggest reading a little more widely. Secondly, are you claiming that religions, cultures, and states are immune to influence from the substructure of society? Obviously it cannot explain those institutions in toto, but one would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that the mode of production played no role whatsoever in the manner by which said institutions materialize(d) and function(ed). For example, the current distribution of denominational affiliation in Europe owes much to the history of monarchism. Kings and queens throughout history frequently changed faiths for political reasons, thereafter forcing their subjects to do likewise. It was the mode of production (secured by an asymmetrical distribution of force) which enabled that coercion to occur.

I think it would be worthwhile to point that out to the militant Atheists who use "The Materialist Worldview" to justify their militant atheism.

Okay, but the materialism they frequently employ to justify their lack of faith is scientific materialism. They claim that no credible evidence currently exists which could justify belief in a deity, and proceed to ridicule people for continuing to believe in spite of that conspicuous lack of evidence. I'm an atheist myself, but I agree that the so-called "New Atheism" pioneered by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Same Harris, and Daniel Dennett is absolutely ridiculous.

Without going into philosophy, I will say that I disagree. I think nations work better when, seen as organism, they're all united towards a common goal and meaning. For many in the Soviet Union it was the ideal of Communism that drove it forward, while in places like the Third Race it was race Idealism.

And it's conceivable that a state which perpetually threatens the lives of its citizenry, in order to incentivize efficient labor, could produce an optimal economic output; that doesn't somehow ethically exonerate the hypothetical state from the psychological trauma it caused. No public entity should be granted the right to dictate what people should accept as the meaning of life, sorry.

Let's hear what you think. Are humans superior to animals due to the fact they have an increased intelligence and conscious?

I reject the entire premise of the question, as I don't accept strict valuations on the basis of superiority or inferiority. I fully acknowledge that human beings are 'objectively' more intelligent than animals. However, that acknowledgement doesn't mean I respect intelligence in an absolute sense. For example, I value the life of a random squirrel far more than that of a pedophile, rapist, or serial killer despite the fact that it's obvious the animal is far less intelligent than the human criminal.

It is possible to maintain a unique culture and identity while a domestic bourgeois dominates (for the mean time) but as soon as the globalist-liberal capitalist system sweeps in, a nation and people will lose its identity and culture in a flood of modernism and it is very hard to salvage.

Capitalism is indeed a homogenizing force. However, the very fact a bourgeoisie partook in the national liberation struggle, and would therefore continue to exist in this scenario, indicates that, even though the imperial force would be repelled, the end result, again, would be the same. Japan is a relatively ethnically homogenous nation today, and yet their culture is becoming indistinguishable from that of North America and Europe. Capitalism is a global system, and as long as a nation operates according to the logic of the market, it will become absorbed into that system. A 'national capitalism' would be incapable of sustaining itself.

Marx himself dubbed the first stages of production in human history "Primitive Communism". A revolution implies one goes full circle and back to a beginning point.

Karl Marx did not glorify primitive communism, but Julius Evola most certain did glorify monarchism. What Marx correctly stated was that mankind was freer in tribal society in terms of not having to be submissive before a more privileged social class or being alienated from its own labor, but he also acknowledged that humanity suffered to a considerable extent from having to endure conditions of chronic scarcity and uncertainty. It was for this reason that he considered every mode of production which succeeded primitive communism to be an advancement—since the forces of production continued to develop, thereby progressively diminishing material scarcity.

Evola, on the other hand, sought a complete restoration of the old order. So, I'm afraid that's a false equivalence.

Hunter-Gatherer tribes were never centralized

And they weren't centralized because hierarchy was disdained so strongly. It literally wasn't until a maldstribution of force arose that centralization became viable.

You admitted that there was indeed some ceremonial leadership. Who is to say this sort of ceremonial leadership will not exist in the future?

Of course it can be, the question is should it be. Hunter gatherer tribes haven't the time to reflect upon life in the manner civilized peoples do, and even if they did, they would conceive of things differently due to their primitive cultural experience. I cannot think of a logical reason why a modern society would wish to retain powerless, ceremonial figures for any purpose. That's not to suggest it won't occur, but I would oppose it on principle (unless it were in a completely voluntary and private context, e.g., in church).

Who is to say that the hunterer-gather model can be applied to the scale of a large nation?

It cannot be applied on a larger scale because that would entail a return to foraging for food in the wilderness, which no rational person would accept. Aspects of primitive communism can and should be practiced, such as classlessness, but certainly not the entire lifestyle.

In which cases were these studies conducted? On what scale?

Take Kurt Lewin's 1939 study, "The Consequences of Authoritarian and Democratic Leadership." It was applied in the realm of education and students were presented with three leadership methods: laissez-faire, democratic, and autocratic. Students performed worst under the laissez-faire model, decently under autocratic, but best within the democratic setting. As Lewin explained, "There was about thirty times as much hostile domination in the autocracy as in the democracy, more demands for attention and much more hostile criticism; whereas in the democratic atmosphere co-operation and praise of the other fellow was much more frequent."

Then we have evidence from the case studies on workers' self-management. Virtually all the research demonstrates that workers in labor-managed firms possess a stronger feeling of freedom and solidarity because they are in control of their work conditions without needing to answer to outside owners. Job satisfaction is also significantly higher in labor-managed firms. As Paul Blumberg stressed, "There is hardly a study in the entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is enhanced or that other generally acknowledged beneficial consequences accrue from a genuine increase in workers' decision-making power" [Jackall and Levin (eds.) Worker Cooperatives in America, pp. 7-8]. According to Garry Hunnius, in the Yugoslav socialist cooperatives, "participation in workers' councils and/or management boards [resulted] in significantly greater general job satisfaction" [Hunnius, Garson, and Case (eds.) Workers' Control, p. 302].

I think the empirical evidence is fairly clear: people perform better in democratic atmospheres and generally prefer controlling their own lives. Exogenous forces and a rare frequency of innate masochism can explain those who appear not to.

And did not the enlightenment thinkers do the exact same thing? The 'Divine Rights of Man"? The natural liberties? The monarchy was indeed corrupt and morally bankrupt, however, the French revolutionaries themselves could do nothing but talk about the same mystical rights that the Monarchists talked about and promise a better future (which, as we see today, was a lie).

Attributing rights to nature was certainly an improvement over attributing them to invisible—and suspiciously selective—deities. And no, the better future they promised was not a total lie. By basically every indicator of human welfare, we are better off today than we were under feudalism. Human liberation hasn't been achieved, but that's hardly a vindication of traditionalism (for we weren't free in the past either). We forge our own rights, and emancipation for the working classes shall be attained in struggle.

Celtiberian wrote:The forces of production, in general, developed to a point which rendered feudal social relations obsolete. For example, advances in agricultural techniques increased yields to a point in which far more of the surplus product could be commodified than was previously possible—thereby increasing market activity exponentially. Shortly thereafter, manufacturing developed and it was soon discovered that the most practical method by which to profitably produce commodities in such a context was through the employment of wage labor. This inevitably gave rise to a class struggle between the nascent bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was the slogan which the bourgeoisie utilized to secure support from the working masses in their revolutions against the Ancien Régime. However, the people soon realized that the ideal for which they had sacrificed so much was illusory. They had merely replaced feudal subjugation with wage slavery and, consequently, immediately began to struggle against the new order. The workers didn't voluntarily construct yet another hierarchical society in its place, as you suggested.

Thank you for the intelligent response, much appreciated.

First of all, I suggest reading a little more widely. Secondly, are you claiming that religions, cultures, and states are immune to influence from the substructure of society? Obviously it cannot explain those institutions in toto, but one would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that the mode of production played no role whatsoever in the manner by which said institutions materialize(d) and function(ed). For example, the current distribution of denominational affiliation in Europe owes much to the history of monarchism. Kings and queens throughout history frequently changed faiths for political reasons, thereafter forcing their subjects to do likewise. It was the mode of production (secured by an asymmetrical distribution of force) which enabled that coercion to occur.

I am saying that they are not totally influenced by material conditions and production as many modern day hyper-Marxists espouse, however you agree that is not the case. I see what you mean and the theory obviously has some credence, but if I might ask, how does the "mode of production" specifically enable a Monarch to change their population's religion?

And it's conceivable that a state which perpetually threatens the lives of its citizenry, in order to incentivize efficient labor, could produce an optimal economic output; that doesn't somehow ethically exonerate the hypothetical state from the psychological trauma it caused. No public entity should be granted the right to dictate what people should accept as the meaning of life, sorry.

It shouldn't be dictated or forced, however, encouraged through media and all public facets. It will help bond the people of the nation together in brotherhood and fraternity (that along with participation in government and the social justice they will achieve through economic programs).

I reject the entire premise of the question, as I don't accept strict valuations on the basis of superiority or inferiority. I fully acknowledge that human beings are 'objectively' more intelligent than animals. However, that acknowledgement doesn't mean I respect intelligence in an absolute sense. For example, I value the life of a random squirrel far more than that of a pedophile, rapist, or serial killer despite the fact that it's obvious the animal is far less intelligent than the human criminal.

I agree with you that a random squirrel is more valuable than any degenerate human being, but to be honest, I am not sure where this topic is going anymore.

Capitalism is indeed a homogenizing force. However, the very fact a bourgeoisie partook in the national liberation struggle, and would therefore continue to exist in this scenario, indicates that, even though the imperial force would be repelled, the end result, again, would be the same. Japan is a relatively ethnically homogenous nation today, and yet their culture is becoming indistinguishable from that of North America and Europe. Capitalism is a global system, and as long as a nation operates according to the logic of the market, it will become absorbed into that system. A 'national capitalism' would be incapable of sustaining itself.

True and that is why I said (in the meantime). I believe that it would make socialist struggles within the nation easier to repel an imperial bourgeoisie and not to mention it would put off the effects of globalization.

Karl Marx did not glorify primitive communism, but Julius Evola most certain did glorify monarchism. What Marx correctly stated was that mankind was freer in tribal society in terms of not having to be submissive before a more privileged social class or being alienated from its own labor, but he also acknowledged that humanity suffered to a considerable extent from having to endure conditions of chronic scarcity and uncertainty. It was for this reason that he considered every mode of production which succeeded primitive communism to be an advancement—since the forces of production continued to develop, thereby progressively diminishing material scarcity.

Evola, on the other hand, sought a complete restoration of the old order. So, I'm afraid that's a false equivalence.

I still think there is more in common than you think. Evola and Marx are both enemies of Open Society. Anyway, I agree with Marx in that it is a good thing scarcity was diminished. Once people can stop worrying about their economic needs (cause they're taken care of) they can move onto higher facets of human civilization (participation in cultures, sciences, religions, arts etc etc).

Of course it can be, the question is should it be. Hunter gatherer tribes haven't the time to reflect upon life in the manner civilized peoples do, and even if they did, they would conceive of things differently due to their primitive cultural experience. I cannot think of a logical reason why a modern society would wish to retain powerless, ceremonial figures for any purpose. That's not to suggest it won't occur, but I would oppose it on principle (unless it were in a completely voluntary and private context, e.g., in church).

I disagree with your assertion that any form of ceremonial leadership would be "uncivilized".

It cannot be applied on a larger scale because that would entail a return to foraging for food in the wilderness, which no rational person would accept. Aspects of primitive communism can and should be practiced, such as classlessness, but certainly not the entire lifestyle.

I was basically asking, how you can apply something that worked on a tribal scale to work on an entire national scale. I still believe that some central coordination would be necessary.

Take Kurt Lewin's 1939 study, "The Consequences of Authoritarian and Democratic Leadership." It was applied in the realm of education and students were presented with three leadership methods: laissez-faire, democratic, and autocratic. Students performed worst under the laissez-faire model, decently under autocratic, but best within the democratic setting. As Lewin explained, "There was about thirty times as much hostile domination in the autocracy as in the democracy, more demands for attention and much more hostile criticism; whereas in the democratic atmosphere co-operation and praise of the other fellow was much more frequent."

Then we have evidence from the case studies on workers' self-management. Virtually all the research demonstrates that workers in labor-managed firms possess a stronger feeling of freedom and solidarity because they are in control of their work conditions without needing to answer to outside owners. Job satisfaction is also significantly higher in labor-managed firms. As Paul Blumberg stressed, "There is hardly a study in the entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction in work is enhanced or that other generally acknowledged beneficial consequences accrue from a genuine increase in workers' decision-making power" [Jackall and Levin (eds.) Worker Cooperatives in America, pp. 7-8]. According to Garry Hunnius, in the Yugoslav socialist cooperatives, "participation in workers' councils and/or management boards [resulted] in significantly greater general job satisfaction" [Hunnius, Garson, and Case (eds.) Workers' Control, p. 302].

I think the empirical evidence is fairly clear: people perform better in democratic atmospheres and generally prefer controlling their own lives. Exogenous forces and a rare frequency of innate masochism can explain those who appear not to.

I will concede to this point, I am aware worker's produce better under conditions where they have control over their own workshop. However, I would be interested in knowing how "this democracy" worked. Was it representative? Directly issued to each student? How many students? This form would have to be applied to the nation as a whole.

Attributing rights to nature was certainly an improvement over attributing them to invisible—and suspiciously selective—deities.

I disagree.

And no, the better future they promised was not a total lie. By basically every indicator of human welfare, we are better off today than we were under feudalism. Human liberation hasn't been achieved, but that's hardly a vindication of traditionalism (for we weren't free in the past either). We forge our own rights, and emancipation for the working classes shall be attained in struggle.

Maybe we have more objects and are more technologically advanced, but again that is all subject, I don't measure human progress in technological progress and how much shit is produced alone.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I see what you mean and the theory obviously has some credence, but if I might ask, how does the "mode of production" specifically enable a Monarch to change their population's religion?

The aristocracy could only maintain its status as a ruling class (and hence secure its monopoly on force) through the surplus labor provided by the working masses. If a surplus wasn't being produced and appropriated by a ruling class, the individuals who would have otherwise been aristocrats would literally have had to spend the majority of their time laboring just to sustain themselves. So, to answer your question, the military coercion utilized by the crown to force the nation's subjects into religious conformity was provided for through the feudal mode of production—soldiers cost money, which was provided to them from the aristocracy, who themselves had expropriated it from the peasantry (and artisans) and/or the foreign nations they had plundered through imperial ventures.

It shouldn't be dictated or forced, however, encouraged through media and all public facets. It will help bond the people of the nation together in brotherhood and fraternity (that along with participation in government and the social justice they will achieve through economic programs).

You can list dozens of potential benefits such a campaign could result in, but it still wouldn't justify the egregious lie which the state would be perpetrating. The state is financed through revenue generated through labor, and unless the workers' themselves democratically decide to support such a ludicrous spectacle, it shouldn't be implemented. Any action to the contrary would be autocratic and worthy of nothing but contempt.

I disagree with your assertion that any form of ceremonial leadership would be "uncivilized".

It would be illogical. Uncivilized people typically don't question such roles as they haven't much time or education to seriously reflect upon them.

I was basically asking, how you can apply something that worked on a tribal scale to work on an entire national scale. I still believe that some central coordination would be necessary.

Classlessness can be achieved through adjusting ownership relations in society and modifying the criteria by which labor is remunerated. Abolishing the corporate division of labor and replacing it with a system of balanced job complexes is also an option, though it's not necessarily required in order to construct a classless society. None of this requires the establishment of institutions administered by unaccountable elites (who, in addition to possessing more power, may or may not possess more income than the rest of society).

However, I would be interested in knowing how "this democracy" worked. Was it representative? Directly issued to each student? How many students? This form would have to be applied to the nation as a whole.

In the study, children were assigned to one of three groups, each possessing a different method of leadership (laissez-faire, autocratic, and democratic). The leaders then assigned an arts and crafts project to the children, and researchers analyzed the dynamics and outcome of each method. The study cannot be applied directly to the polity I support, due to the fact that the leaders still possessed ultimate decision-making control. Nevertheless, it's still quite revealing and supportive of my general thesis.

They constructed the authoritarian model by having the autocratic leaders provided clear expectations to the students regarding what needed to be done, when it was to be completed, and the manner by which it should be done. As such, a very clear division between leaders and the followers was created. The autocratic leaders made decisions independently, and with little or no input from the rest of the group. In the course of the study, it was revealed that decision-making in the authoritarian context was far less creative than that experienced in the democratic setting. Another interesting finding was that it was much more difficult to move from an authoritarian to a democratic style than vice versa—thereby confirming the profound extent by which exogenous forces can shape our preferences, behavior, and so forth. (In my last post, I provided quotes from Lewin highlighting further negative consequences of autocracy).

The democratic leaders, conversely, offered only guidance to the group, participated in the project themselves, and actively encouraged discussion among the members. Though the group members were slightly less productive than those within the authoritarian group, their contributions were of a vastly superior quality.

I'm not sure what the sample size was, but when you compare the results of the study to the evidence collected from labor-managed firms, the results lead directly to the conclusion that, again, people prefer controlling their own affairs, perform better within horizontal atmospheres, and dislike autocratic control.

Maybe we have more objects and are more technologically advanced, but again that is all subject, I don't measure human progress in technological progress and how much shit is produced alone.

I don't measure progress by those criteria alone either.

Celtiberian wrote:The aristocracy could only maintain its status as a ruling class (and hence secure its monopoly on force) through the surplus labor provided by the working masses. If a surplus wasn't being produced and appropriated by a ruling class, the individuals who would have otherwise been aristocrats would literally have had to spend the majority of their time laboring just to sustain themselves. So, to answer your question, the military coercion utilized by the crown to force the nation's subjects into religious conformity was provided for through the feudal mode of production—soldiers cost money, which was provided to them from the aristocracy, who themselves had expropriated it from the peasantry (and artisans) and/or the foreign nations they had plundered through imperial ventures.

True, but technically all people who perform roles of administration in any State or Government are payed off surplus value (taxes).

You can list dozens of potential benefits such a campaign could result in, but it still wouldn't justify the egregious lie which the state would be perpetrating. The state is financed through revenue generated through labor, and unless the workers' themselves democratically decide to support such a ludicrous spectacle, it shouldn't be implemented. Any action to the contrary would be autocratic and worthy of nothing but contempt.

An ideal doesn't need to be a lie. The ideal can be something as simple as the nation itself - the people - the workers - the peasants. Now, I would certainly object to an ideal being created something ridiculous. Having a common ideal would bond the people of the nation together, encourage harmony, civilization, culture, and make it much easier to create a cooperative society. The party would most likely embody the ideal, and the ideal would be taught to the people upon the period of "Dictatorship of the National Proletariat".

It would be illogical. Uncivilized people typically don't question such roles as they haven't much time or education to seriously reflect upon them.

Theoretically, a ceremonial leader could embody an ideal. Be the utmost representative of that ideal. There was very good reasons groups in the past had ceremonial leaders, however that ties into religion and that is probably a topic we should avoid at the current moment in time.

Classlessness can be achieved through adjusting ownership relations in society and modifying the criteria by which labor is remunerated. Abolishing the corporate division of labor and replacing it with a system of balanced job complexes is also an option, though it's not necessarily required in order to construct a classless society. None of this requires the establishment of institutions administered by unaccountable elites (who, in addition to possessing more power, may or may not possess more income than the rest of society).

Yes, but I still think that any nation will need a centralized authority of some sort, at least at first to educate people. We will have to agree to disagree here.

In the study, children were assigned to one of three groups, each possessing a different method of leadership (laissez-faire, autocratic, and democratic). The leaders then assigned an arts and crafts project to the children, and researchers analyzed the dynamics and outcome of each method. The study cannot be applied directly to the polity I support, due to the fact that the leaders still possessed ultimate decision-making control. Nevertheless, it's still quite revealing and supportive of my general thesis.

I can see how it can not be directly applied, however, since the study was done on children (who are young enough to be doing arts and crafts in school) it makes me a bit skeptical as to whether it can be applied to governing a nation of adults as a whole.

The democratic leaders, conversely, offered only guidance to the group, participated in the project themselves, and actively encouraged discussion among the members. Though the group members were slightly less productive than those within the authoritarian group, their contributions were of a vastly superior quality.

I'm not sure what the sample size was, but when you compare the results of the study to the evidence collected from labor-managed firms, the results lead directly to the conclusion that, again, people prefer controlling their own affairs, perform better within horizontal atmospheres, and dislike autocratic control.

I still think I am the least bit vindicated due to the fact that there was leaders. I have never been advocating an unaccountable bureaucracy, but I suggested that people will in a democracy form a sort of hierarchy and authority for decision making - it doesn't conflict the keeping the hierarchy accountable and it doesn't mean a total separation from the group.

I don't measure progress by those criteria alone either.

To be quite honest, I think progress is quite a subjective term - I don't see the need to identify oneself as a "progressive". Everyone can identify what their vision of human progress looks like.